Suppr超能文献

心血管病患者常用药物的依从性和用药频率。

Adherence and dosing frequency of common medications for cardiovascular patients.

机构信息

College of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68198-6045, USA.

出版信息

Am J Manag Care. 2012 Mar;18(3):139-46.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare adherence between once-daily (QD) and twice-daily (BID) dosing with chronic-use prescription medications used by patients with cardiovascular disease.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort database analysis.

METHODS

Analysis consisted of 1,077,474 patients aged >18 years with a prescription index date from January 1 to December 31, 2007, for an antidiabetic, antihyperlipidemic, antiplatelet, or cardiac agent with QD or BID dosing. Adherence (medication possession ratio [MPR]) was the number of days of medication supplied between the first prescription fill date and the subsequent 365 days divided by 365 days. Overall mean MPR and comparisons between dosing frequency groups were assessed with a generalized estimating equation. Covariates included age at index date, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, therapeutic class, dosing frequency, and the interaction between therapeutic class and dosing frequency group.

RESULTS

Overall, the adjusted mean MPR ± standard error (SE) value for QD agents was 13.6% greater than BID agents (0.66 ± 0.0006 vs 0.57 ± 0.0016; P <.01). The adjusted mean MPR value for QD agents was 2.9%, 17.5%, and 29.4% greater than BID agents in the antidiabetic, antihyperlipidemic, and antiplatelet therapeutic classes, respectively. For cardiac agents, the adjusted mean MPR value was similar between QD and BID agents. Carvedilol represented approximately 80% of the cardiac agents in the BID group. The adjusted mean MPR ± SE for carvedilol phosphate QD was 0.73 ± 0.0024 and 0.65 ± 0.0027 for carvedilol BID (11% difference; P <.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large analysis, the QD dosing regimen was related to greater adherence versus a BID regimen.

摘要

目的

比较心血管疾病患者使用的慢性处方药中,每日一次(QD)与每日两次(BID)给药方案的依从性。

研究设计

回顾性队列数据库分析。

方法

分析纳入了 2007 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日期间,年龄>18 岁,接受抗糖尿病、调脂、抗血小板或心脏药物治疗,采用 QD 或 BID 给药方案的 1,077,474 例患者。依从性(用药比例[MPR])为首次处方用药日期至随后 365 天内的用药天数除以 365 天。采用广义估计方程评估总体平均 MPR 及不同给药频次组间的比较。协变量包括索引日期时的年龄、性别、Charlson 合并症指数、治疗类别、给药频次以及治疗类别与给药频次组间的交互作用。

结果

总体而言,QD 药物的校正平均 MPR±标准误(SE)值比 BID 药物高 13.6%(0.66±0.0006 比 0.57±0.0016;P<0.01)。在抗糖尿病、调脂和抗血小板治疗类别中,QD 药物的校正平均 MPR 值分别比 BID 药物高 2.9%、17.5%和 29.4%。对于心脏药物,QD 与 BID 药物的校正平均 MPR 值相似。卡维地洛约占 BID 组心脏药物的 80%。QD 卡维地洛磷酸的校正平均 MPR±SE 为 0.73±0.0024,BID 卡维地洛的为 0.65±0.0027(11%差异;P<0.01)。

结论

在这项大型分析中,QD 给药方案与 BID 方案相比,具有更高的依从性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验